The circus among the German Social Democrats (SPD) around prominent reformist Wolfgang Clement has ended with his resignation from the party. It has ended in one of the worse ways possible.

Wolfgang Clement speaking at the INSM. Source: 96dpi / creativecommons.org

Wolfgang Clement was a former minister of the economy in Schröder's second government, and a former state Minister President. He fell in disrepute among many in the SPD after he publicly warned against electing Andrea Ypsilanti in the German state of Hesse. Party members soon started filing applications to request his expulsion from the party. An expulsion procedure was eventually launched, and although the local SPD arbitration court decided to leave him with a reprimand, the State arbitration court - in his own state, North Rhine-Westphalia - decided to expel Clement from the party.

The party base wanted Clement to go, but the centrist federal leadership decided to make highly publicised efforts to reach out. And so this Monday we got the unfortunate news that the national arbitration court let Clement stay on as a party member, and gave him a reprimand.

Now the centrists have belatedly found out what they have been dealing with. It turns out that Clement had only been fighting his expulsion in order to keep the honour to himself, and publicly lecture the SPD one last time.

Promoted with slight edit by DoDo

Geoengineering describes a project of rapid, large-scale intervention at some points to alter the earth's surface temperature. It's been discussed in-depth in these two diaries on the European Tribune:

Cooling the Earth: CO2, SO2, and The Sunscreen Fix by technopolitical (Oct. 2006)
Geoengineering: basic principles, some thoughts, some questions by asiegel (Mar. 2008)

There may be large differences in how we think about geoengineering. In my opinion, it should be seen as both an extreme and transitional measure. But at least we seemed to agree that there is a need to research it and to set priorities. What I proposed was the following:

Planting trees and mechanical air capture of carbon are better than injecting SO2 into the stratosphere, which again is better than seeding the oceans with iron dust. In my opinion...

There are more interesting options beyond those, which you can find in asiegel's diary.

Now we have a bit more to go by, as some of the more common ideas about geoengineering have been studied and ranked in a Nature Geoscience paper by New Zealander Philip Boyd.

Promoted by afew

Today I had the hairbrained idea to plan for buying a new fridge / freezer with my flat-sharing community. As we only have old stuff, and I mean old as in fifteen to twenty years old, I suspect that it uses far too much power. Plus, it is my patriotic duty to consume when the economy goes down, or something.

Of course to get something that uses a lot less power you will need information. So I started a search for Energieeffizienz Geräte. The first page I got was the federal environment ministry. I later repeated the search for Energieverbrauch Geräte (energy use for appliances), which is a more habitual expression. The ministry's page was the top sponsored link, although not in the first ten search results.

It was a November day in 2006 when Horst Müller's telephone rang. The other side of the line had Michael Höhenberger, the bureau chief of Bavarian Minister-President Dr. Edmund Stoiber. Mr. Höhenberger had some questions about Gabriele Pauli. He wanted to know what reasons she had for her 'inexplicable' political behaviour. He further asked Müller about issues Pauli was rumoured to have with alcohol, and about her alternating contacts with men.

Müller was responsible for economics in the city government of Fürth, and Gabrielle Pauli was the administrator of the neighbouring rural district. As a friend, Müller told Pauli about this telephone call when the two met at a Christmas party.

Gabriele Pauli may not have held too high an office, but she was a prominent member of the Christian Social Union. Partially because of looks, partially because of intellect. Pauli was elected as a member of the executive board of the Christian Social Union in 1989, even before becoming District Administrator. The board has 45 members and governs the political direction of the party.

At a meeting of this board, shortly before Christmas, Pauli dropped a bombshell by accusing the Minister-President's office of spying on her. This was immediately derided as attention-seeking, paranoia, and hysteria by the party establishment. A media frenzy followed.

In the end, Höhenberger was asked to leave the Minister-President's office within a few days. And Dr. Edmund Stoiber would not be long to follow.

Big election day this Sunday in Europe, with Belarus, Austria and the German state of Bavaria. Over 30 million people, altogether.

I too get a chance to cast a vote, in Berlin, though tactically, I'd probably be better adviced not to.

There's a referendum in Berlin Mitte on the extension of zones in which parking fees are levied. The machines are already operating, but a citizen's initiative has gathered enough votes to get a referendum.

As this is in a district of Berlin and not in the entire state, all EU citizens that have residency can vote.

Update [2008-9-28 10:49:29 by nanne]:Results here.

Update [2008-9-28 14:42:27 by nanne]: Preliminary results after all votes have been counted: 79,4% for eliminating parking fees; 20,6% against; participation at 11,7%. Referendum fails to overturn the extension due to not meeting the participation threshold.

Austria is up for a snap election on the 28th of September. The 'grand' governing coalition between the social-democratic SPÖ and the conservative ÖVP collapsed in July. And the reasons for that collapse were interesting in the context of Europe. One of the disagreements was over a statement by the Chancellor, Alfred Gusenbauer of the SPÖ, who promised a referendum if an amended version of the Lisbon Treaty would have to be passed again. But however tempting it is to think that the European Union has become an important item of political contention, the coalition's collapse had been coming for a long time.

'Gusenbauer's SPÖ costs trust'. That was the slogan of the ÖVP in the last Austrian elections (see this youtube diary). Negative campaigning against Gusenbauer didn't pay out immediately for the ÖVP. They lost the election by 34 to 35 percent, and because it was the only possible option, had to get in as the minor party of a grand coalition. The ÖVP had led the government for seven years prior to that election, including one highly controversial coalition with the far-right FPÖ, then led by Jörg Haider. The Chancellor in those seven years, Wolfgang Schüssel, did not take up a position in the government, but remains influential as the leader of the ÖVP in Parliament.

Whether or not as an effect of the ÖVP's negative campaigning against him, Gusenbauer proved to be an unpopular Chancellor. In part this seems to have been due to not being able to hold some of the promises he made during the 2006 electoral campaign. More than anything, this indicates poor public relations on Gusenbauer's part. He should have been able to pin the blame for that on the ÖVP, which was nearly as strong a party.

Promoted by DoDo

So Eurostat has drafted a news release for its new population statistics, which has been picked up by the Beeb and several blogs, as they show the UK becoming the largest European country in terms of population in 2060.

The UK allegedly is to grow to a population of 77 million by then, and will be bigger than France (72 million in 'Metropolitan' France) and Germany (71 million).

Never mind Turkey...

European countries apparently want to have these numbers, as they have asked Eurostat in a Council resolution to produce them. Still, Eurostat's methodology leaves a lot to be desired.

(crossposted from the DJ Nozem blog)

Front-paged by afew

A breakthrough by the MIT in generating hydrogen through electrolysis has spurred an astounding bout of wildly off-base reporting. It was heralded as a breakthrough in solar power, and even credited with knocking some dollars of the oil price by excitable, uncritical reporters.

Electrolysis does not discriminate as to the source of the electrical current. Anyone covering science or green innovation should immediately recognise this.

The new procedure generated this amount of coverage because the scientist responsible (Daniel Nocera) framed it effectively in the context of a powerful myth: the myth of the autonomous, self-sufficient, energy-producing home. This myth is ubiquitous in talk of a hydrogen economy.

It starts with the MIT Press Release:

In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.

Promoted by afew

There is a lot of interesting discussion in the European blogosphere about issues related to the Irish referendum. Like the list of demands of Sinn Féin. Like the speculation about funding of Libertas by the American defence establishment. The latter is typical 'undernews' that is, for now, being ignored by the mainstream media.

But let's not lose sight of the big picture.

The Lisbon Treaty did not fail the Irish referendum due to evil American defence corporations, rich Irish corporate hacks, or because it had some elements that irked a small post-marxist Irish party. It failed because it failed to take into account basic emotional responses that any European electorate would have had. If put to a referendum, it would fail in the vast majority of European Union Member States.

(based upon this post over on my blog)

If the process of drafting, approving and ratifying the Lisbon Treaty has shown anything, it is that the normal treaty procedure which the European Union requires for institutional changes is broken and should be replaced by something better.

Due to a series of dilemmas that tie into one another very much like the clichéd Gordian knot (1), chances of getting something better across are slim. Still, this is an attempt to set some goals.

There are two basic requirements for a new institutional solution. First, it needs to be presented as a short, readable text. That is easier than it might seem. Second, it needs to set a framework that can self-adapt. In other words, it needs to do away with the current problem that all major changes in the powers, institutions and objectives of the European Union require a cascade of national parliamentary ratifications.

(This diary is one outcome of a chat with Migeru on the EU. More should follow.)

While the foreign press has been rambling on about the latest stunt of Geert Wilders, the peroxide-dyed agitator from Limburg, a far more potent force on the right has emerged in the Netherlands.

Rita Verdonk, a former minister from the second Balkenende cabinet and deeply involved in the fall of that cabinet over the Ayaan Hirsi Ali citizenship controversy, has launched her 'political movement' Trots Op Nederland (proud of NL).

Verdonk and her Americophile campaign manager Kay van der Linde launched the "it's not a party, it's a movement!" in the bombastic style of a US party convention.

(x-posted)

Promoted by Migeru

Maybe I'm stealing Euan's schtick here, and maybe Piebalgs blogging is getting repetitive. But the energy Commissioner has written another blog post in which he takes the opponents of biofuels to task:

Commissioner Andris Piebalgs - Blog - Biofuels Good or Evil?

[Statements opposing biofuels] have been widely reported and set the dominant tone on the biofuel debate. Contrary views are hardly heard. Yet, these statements are misleading or plain wrong. I myself drive an ethanol-powered Saab 9-5 and certainly I would not even think of it if I had the slightest suspicion that I'm contributing in any way to global warming, or, even worse, to an international genocide. This is why I consider that it is essential to regain a sense of proportion in this debate and try to have a discussion on this issue that is less intemperate and one-sided. I'm confident that this blog can be a good place to do this, and I plan to have a number of entries on this issue, and of course, your comments to them will be extremely welcome. 

Increased attention to the pitfalls of biofuels is most welcome, and I do not think that views supporting biofuels have really been drowned out. Having bought in to biofuels personally, moreover, can hardly be an argument. Ethanol car drivers should take a page from Alan AtKisson instead of presuming that they could not have made a mistake.

Promoted by Colman

I tried to get out of the atheism debate, but they keep pulling me back in.

The small band of people who are now referred to as 'the new atheists' finally lost the last bit of my respect when a few years ago, they were trying to re-label themselves as 'brights'. To be honest, I never cared all that much for Dawkins, but I had expected Dennett to know better. At the time, I was more sympathetic to the notion of developing a fitting label for philosophical naturalists than I am now -- but not something that self-evidently stupid. The entire episode made me cringe.

If you want a reasoned take, read Chris Mooney.

Upon first hearing of the 'new atheists', then, I must admit I had a preconceived idea about Dawkins and Dennett. I also had a preconceived idea about Christopher Hitchens, based upon Hitchens doing a joint tour of the UK with David Horowitz, and reading oh, dozens of his columns on Slate either spewing bile and unsupported allegations on Bill Clinton or claiming that there really were WMD in Iraq. Hitchens is a polemicist for the sake of polemics and I feel I've quite saturated the empirics to make that determination without reading his latest column or book. It just is not worthwhile anymore.

So you have this group of people (including Sam Harris, whom I don't know much about and thereby won't comment upon) who go into the media with each to his a book with a provocative title, talking about how they are no longer going to be quiet in the face of the widespread societal intolerance engendered by people of faith! It doesn't take much to think that these people are just being confrontational. I used a common pejorative to describe that, which I shan't repeat in this rejoinder.

(This diary is a response to Ted Welch's 'On misunderstanding Dawkins', which was in turn sparked by ThatBritGuy's diary 'On not understanding Religion')

Eager to shore up its relations with the public, the European Commission has launched a slick website boasting 10 achievements the European Union has made for you in 2007. The Commissioner for Communication, Margot Wallström, writes:

The EU is there for the citizens and its aim is to respond to their needs and concerns. In 2007, its 50th anniversary, the Union has again taken concrete actions leading to concrete results. These range from measures to combat climate change to providing the European consumer with a wider choice of goods and services at lower prices.

In 2006, when the Commission was still at a loss at what to do about the stranded Constitution, it launched a "citizen's agenda", which focused on "delivering results for Europe" through concrete policy drives. The focus on implementing policies that will benefit citizens in order to increase the popularity of the EU was deliberate, as the Communication (.pdf) testifies. The promotional website and folder on "Europe and you in 2007" have to be seen through this lens.

(Originally posted as 'EU Achievements for Its Citizens 2007' on the Atlantic Community and 'The State of the Citizen's European Union' on the Atlantic Review

Diary rescue by Migeru

The next US President is going to be a huge improvement for relations between the US and Europe. If, as seems likely, it's going to be a Democrat.

If we focus on the relations of the EU and of our individual countries with the US, there are substantial differences between the three Democrats who could still win the Democratic nomination: Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Those differences are nowhere near as big as the differences between these three and any Republican, but they're important.

Europe is still going to have challenges to work out with all three candidates. All three are still firm believers in American exceptionalism, but express it in different ways.

(Adapted from Obama and Europe)

Peter Sain ley Berry is out to get my goat with his latest column in the EUobserver:

Making cars more efficient will not necessarily curb our emissions

Just the title is false. Making cars more efficient will curb our emissions. Not as a matter of logical necessity, but as a matter of empirical fact.

Sain ley Berry gets out the usual argument made in this context, known among economists as Jevons paradox and among greens as the rebound effect.

Moreover, the reason that vehicle emissions are increasing is not, surely, that people are buying bigger cars, but that they are buying more cars and driving them further. This may be because, relative to everything else, fuel prices have fallen in Europe since the 1950s, and the capital cost of vehicles has tumbled.

Improving car emission performance will reduce motoring costs even further. We may emit less carbon per kilometre, but overall there will be more cars and more kilometres. It does not necessarily follow that if emissions per kilometre fall, then total emissions will fall. This is particularly true if a big car is substituted by two smaller cars.

(crossposted)

Between all the talk we have here about the cliff we're driving towards at increasing speed due to the unsustainability of the economic and technological systems we live and participate in, I'm afraid we're losing sight of just how managable the issue really is.

As the light green PR thinkers Nordhaus and Schellenberger have rightly pointed out many times, bombarding people with a plethora of dangers which they should worry about does not lead to a positive, liberal response. Instead, it fuels conservative sentiments.

At the same time, Schellenberger and Nordhaus seem to have internalised a right-wing narrative about the American way of life which if you think about it comes down pretty much to 'the eternal yankee'. The eternal yankee is a consumer and proud of it. The extent of his freedom is defined by the quantity of his material possessions. Global warming politics, according to Schellenberger and Nordhaus, needs to be fitted around this perspective of the eternal yankee. This means it cannot affect material consumption. ((comments Diary Rescue by Migeru))

The second day of the Beyond GDP conference in Brussels is split into two parts. The first part could be called 'the meat', consisting of two sessions going deeper into alternative measures by exploring 'insights from recent practice' and looking at 'what the new measures say and how they can be used'. The second part was about the way forward. This is a summary of that second part.

Once again, I refer to the programme.

Although I missed most of the first part, at the end of the conference the chair said that the videos from the individual sessions would be put online, as well as the presentations given and the proceedings. So another part may be upcoming...

Tuesday's afternoon sessions consisted of one panel with four speeches; a discussion by the audience which in practice turned into a session of speeches and comments as input for the conclusions on the way forward (the coherence of these varied), and concluding remarks by Stavros Dimas.

These first two parts certainly provided a good deal more entertainment than Monday's sessions. There was a lot of criticism of neoclassical economics, and some different views were put forward on whether economists should be re-educated, or if we would have to breed a new generation of economists. I think we might take some inspiration from this and now venture into a lengthy debate on the pressing question of whether economists should be tried for treason, or merely be sent to re-education camps.

Just to push the overton window a bit...

A few days ago, Bruno-Ken posted a brief write-up of the Beyond GDP conference, which takes place this Monday and Tuesday. Saving on my carbon budget, I was able to follow the first day of the conference over the live stream. Though of course this offers no replacement for networking with assorted officials of international institutions, etcetera. Here's a run-down of Mondays proceedings:

The conference is about "measuring progress, true wealth and the well-being of nations". There is a growing realisation that the current set of macro-economic indicators that dominate decision-making are no longer adequate for the policy challenges that the world faces today. This theme is by now so familiar that when Barroso, in the opening address, stated that "to deal with the challenges of the future, we can't use the measures of the past", it sounded like a platitude.

Maybe that was because Barroso said it, though it certainly didn't sound any more meaningful when Almunia repeated it in similar words.

As this is not going to be chronological, taking a glance at the programme might be of help.

In keeping for the demand for more T&A, here's a throwaway diary about Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bündchen.

Last Saturday I asked Helen what exactly we could do to push the Dollar into a free fall. Not that I'd want to trigger a free fall, but I just think that our influence in the larger scheme of things is not quite big enough. I mentioned that there are enough credible people with plenty of money shouting from the rooftops that everyone should dump the dollar and move their assets out of the US.

This, of course, betrays a fatal misunderstanding of the age we live in on my part. Face it. No one listens to boring old white billionaire investors anymore. When you want attention, what you need is a celebrity.

Now we have one!

(I suspect that rg has something to do with this...)